Princeton should call itself a sanctuary city

On Friday, Feb. 21, following false reports of an ICE raid on Witherspoon Street, the Princeton municipal government reaffirmed its commitment to “serve and support [all residents],” regardless of citizenship status.

The statement’s purpose was manifold: Beyond general assurances from the Mayor and the Council that “regardless of … your place of birth, you are welcome in Princeton,” it also provided clarification on the legal basis of the Princeton Police Department’s non-cooperation policy to not engage or interfere with ICE enforcement of civil immigration violations.

Certainly, as the threat of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) continues to encroach on major metropolises and small towns alike, Princeton’s support for its immigrant community as a “welcoming city” is promising. At present, the town qualifies as a “welcoming city” due to its membership in the Welcoming America network nonprofit, which leads a collection of communities that are broadly supportive of immigrants’ rights within their jurisdiction. However, our current political climate demands that we collectively take a more proactive approach to protecting all residents who live within our municipality. I challenge Princeton to go one step further in officially establishing itself as a “sanctuary city” — a municipal body that limits the operating ability of federal immigration agencies — and join in existing lawsuits combating the Trump administration’s hostile deportation movement.

Admittedly, the term ”sanctuary city” is rather loosely defined, but there are some common characteristics. The American Immigration Council has generally identified a broad list of qualifiers, and concluded that a municipality must actively seek to “limit their cooperation” and even occasionally interfere with the enforcement of federal deportation efforts to qualify as a sanctuary city. Interestingly, within the scope of this definition, the town of Princeton fulfills many of the conditions.

Over the course of the past decade, the town of Princeton has emerged as a staunch champion of immigrant rights. In 2010, the township issued “community identification cards” as a means of providing avenues of legal documentation for undocumented residents. This enabled residents to provide identification without revealing their citizenship status. Three years later, the Princeton Police Department issued a series of regulations that prevented the Police Department from assisting in federal raids and reduced unnecessary identification checks. In 2015, Princeton was the first municipality in the state of New Jersey to join the nonprofit Welcoming America, officially establishing its designation as a “welcoming city.” Today, the township continues to support its immigrant community through initiatives like the Princeton-based Immigration Trust Directive and the larger Cities For Action association.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that Princeton already effectively functions as a “sanctuary city.” The town should identify itself accordingly in its legal framework and terminology.

While it is true that sanctuary cities have drawn the ire of the Trump administration, the “less controversial” designation of a “welcoming city” is no longer the safeguard it once was. The Trump administration has already begun to advance legal action against welcoming cities in Illinois, like Chicago and Cook County, on the basis of their sanctuary laws.

If even the “welcoming city” distinction does not protect a municipality from being targeting by the Trump administration, there is no reason to avoid the “sanctuary city” label in favor of a more tepid alternative. Either way, Princeton’s stance in favor of immigrant rights has made it vulnerable — so the township should more fully commit to a stronger position against unethical immigration policies. As an authoritative body, it is thus imperative that the town of Princeton not only stand its ground, but further establish itself as a “sanctuary city.”

As a sanctuary city, Princeton could spearhead more dedicated efforts for legal protections, such as policies preventing immigration detention centers or “287(g)” cooperation agreements between ICE and local officers. It could also serve to build trust among the members of Princeton’s community, especially considering one in three Princeton residents were born outside of the country. Most pertinently, it is vital that Princeton join collaborative efforts across other sanctuary cities to resist the inevitable threat that future anti-immigration Trump executive orders will pose. In a time when democracy is in crisis, the town of Princeton should do all that it can to protect its most vulnerable.

Wynne Conger is a sophomore and prospective SPIA major from Bryn Mawr, Pa. She can be reached by email at wc2918[at]princeton.edu. Her column “Popping the Bubble” runs every three weeks on Monday. You can read all of her columns here.